In the past, I’ve written volumes about hospital attempts to lock in doctors by offering them access to a free or deeply-discounted EMR. I haven’t heard much about this strategy of late — either the approach was dropped or it’s gone underground — but it seems that other players are still giving it a shot.

This time, in what seems to be a fairly logical step, Quest Diagnostics has kicked off a program offering medical practices a steep 85 percent discount off of the retail price of its Care360 EMR and practice management bundle.  The announcement follows up on its 2011 regional giveaway program, which Quest says attracted thousands of physicians.

The deal, which reduces the physicians’ out of pocket cost to less than $100 per month,  also includes training, hosting, maintenance and 24/7 support for Care360. The lab giant says physicians can get Care360 up and running in about 45 days.

I can’t think of a reason why this wouldn’t make great sense for Quest; if my contacts are to be believed, it has no better reputation than its key competitors when it comes to customer service and follow-through on clinical testing.

On the other hand, if I were a doctor I’d think long and hard before agreeing to a deal like this, even though the software is just about free. There’s simply too much at stake to plunge in.

Yes, Care360 is CCHIT certified and, intriguingly, has incorporated the Direct Project specs allowing doctors to share information with patients and hospitals. And yes, it seems to have made efforts to support EMR access via mobile devices. This is all good. And of course, the price is right.

On the other hand, I’m not sure I’d want to make this big of a commitment to any particular service provider, be it a reference lab, a radiology provider or the people who stock my vending machines with sodas.

I’d argue that the more important the service is, the less you want to be beholden to the vendor. After all,what if Care360 isn’t your cup of tea?  Do you really want to disrupt your relationship with a critical provider like Quest?

Not only that, it’s risky to lock in an EMR just because it’s cheap. If Care360 takes 45 days to get installed, it’s not going to be possible to uninstall it in a day or two, and that could mean misery on wheels if the product doesn’t work for you.

Besides, it’s possible to get Web-based, easy to adopt or drop EMRs for only a couple hundred dollars a month more. It wouldn’t make sense to go for an EMR that might not work just to save that little. (If your margin is tight enough that a savings of $200 or $300 a month is critical, you have worse problems than finding the right EMR!)

I guess I’m saying that even if the EMR is nearly free, caveat emptor. You don’t want to get saddled with an albatross system just because the price was right.

While there’s a number of  large, publicly-traded EMR vendors out there — General Electric (NASDAQ: GE) and Cerner (NASDAQ: CERN) immediately come to mind — to date we haven’t seen many mid-sized or small companies kick off an initial public offering. But one medium-sized EMR/practice management vendor has broken the mold.

Today, Greenway Medical Technologies (NASDAQ: GWAY) took the plunge , pulling in $67 million to fund its operations. While the company had hoped to raise $100 million, its take is nothing to sneeze at. Health IT is a tricky investment, even for pros like yourselves, readers, and institutional investors in particular are a conservative bunch. The fact that they’re spending on a risky business means a lot.

Greenway, whose EMR is bundled with practice management software, had one heck of a ride today, with its stock climbing 30 percent during its first day of trading. The company sold 6.7 million shares at prices below its expected $11 to $13 range, diluting its intake somewhat, but the stock closed at a promising $13 per share.

The Carrollton, Ga.-based vendor has certainly done well in recent times. According to insider Wall Street blog Seeking Alpha, Greenway revenues shot up 55 percent, to $25.7 million, during the last quarter of operations. Operating margins went from negative to a positive 2 percent, which is at least a start.  Its biggest cash generator during the quarter was licensing revenue, which climbed 49 percent.

What’s interesting about this IPO isn’t just the fact that it ended well for Greenway. After all, it did take in less than planned, and the Wall Street crowd justifiably wonders how it will fare in a mind-boggling competitive market.  But it’s worth asking whether Greenway did better because it bundles both an EMR and practice management tools. Did the fact that Greenway wasn’t relying solely on EMR revenue contribute to its growth and financial success?  It would be interesting to find out, as that might help predict whether the bundled model is especially popular with physicians.

As for those who’d seek to imitate Greenway, they may have a chance if they move soon. Seeking Alpha editors think HITECH will still pump enough money into the EMR market to make these companies a reasonable investment. And given how many doctors and hospitals are still struggling to put EMRs in place, I have to agree.  In fact, given that an amazing number of hospitals and medical practices junk their first EMR, there may be a whole second wave of opportunity within three to five years.

All told, if the market’s response to a smallish IPO is any indication, you can expect a bunch of other EMR players to follow in its footsteps.  I’m thinking it will be companies in the $100m to $200m range, as they’re small enough to need capital (much cheaper capital than banks offer these days!) and nimble enough to benefit from the cash influx. Stay tuned and in coming months, I’ll tell you which other EMR and HIT companies I’m betting will climb onto the launch pad.

One foggy morning last week, I made my way to the Georgia State Capitol for a Technology Association of Georgia (TAG) Health event relating to the intersection of healthcare IT and state legislation. Little did I know that the state’s government is somewhat unaware of the benefits HIT can bring, both to the patient in terms of more coordinated care and improved quality outcomes, and to the state in terms of job creation and revenue.

I also was not aware that, when it comes to moving from paper to electronic health records, some doctors take a bit more convincing than others. And when I say “a bit,” I really mean they may need to be gently dragged kicking and screaming into the digital age. At least that’s the impression I got at the TAG event after speaking with Sherri Mesquita, an EMR/EHR Consultant – Project Manager, at Community Health Systems Inc. She works with ambulatory clinics and hospitals to help them establish strategy around meeting Meaningful Use deadlines, and has developed a keen sense of when doctors may need an extra “bit” of convincing.

What do you think the biggest challenge is for doctors when it comes to accepting that it’s time to change – to make the move from paper to electronic health records?
I believe the biggest challenge is that in order for them to understand how the EHR experience will be beneficial, you have to get them to actually buy into the idea of an EHR. Doctors want to know that the ROI on their investment is going to bring increased revenue to the practice/hospital, provide more efficiency in the practice, and above all provide the best possible quality of care while keeping costs down.

Physicians talk to other physicians about these newer technologies. If they see their cohorts are doing well, and consistently discuss the positive attributes of the EHR software, other physicians are more likely to follow them in adoption – depending on how much money, time and staff resources are currently available.

In addition, some physicians have already implemented an EHR system in the past and, unfortunately, did not get the right information or customer support, or the vendors were not trained in how and which system works best for that specific clinic. Therefore, those doctors have not had a positive experience in the past, and even went back to using paper after spending thousands of dollars on a system that either was not customizable or did not integrate well with the other practice management or billing programs.

In your experience, when does the light bulb go off in a doctor’s mind – when do they realize that it will truly be to the benefit of their practice, their bottom-line and, ultimately, their patients?
There needs to be a lot of hand holding in the beginning stages, and education is key to them seeing what benefits to the practice an EHR can be. Other doctors again are a very important and vital aspect to implementing an EHR. They bring actual experience and important testimony for the process of going electronic.

Last year, I worked on a program with the Rockdale Chamber of Commerce in Georgia to provide a “transfer of knowledge to doctors” by educating them on the important benefits of implementing an EHR, as well as adopting “Lean” and “Continuous Improvement” in their practices. The purpose of the CI/Lean techniques is to achieve unity of purpose to identify and sustain improvements to patient critical needs.

How do you help them reach this point? What examples do you typically give to show them the value of an EHR?
Though the initial costs and implementation challenges are considerable, delaying implementation today may create additional resource drains tomorrow. The availability of an EHR may soon be a minimum standard for new physicians, public and private payers, and patients.

• EHRs are an essential component of reform-related efforts such as the Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH).
• Practices that do not meet Meaningful Use criteria will face Medicare penalties in 2015.
• A certified, operating EHR will be essential to participation in both public and private pay-for-performance programs expected in the future.
• According to the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions, 42 percent of consumers are interested in establishing an online connection to their physicians through a personal health record and 55 percent of consumers want the ability to communicate online with physicians.

Can you give any specific examples of EHR implementation success stories? Or perhaps from the other viewpoint – an example of a doctor or practice that absolutely refused to make the transition, and why?
Most recently, I have worked with ambulatory practices in Toledo, Ohio – Catholic Health Partners. The doctors and nurses fought it every step of the way, and even threatened to leave the practices. It was a very hard adjustment in the beginning, and for me as a consultant to come in and change the workflow processes and implement new software rollouts was such a challenge.

I was able to work one on one with the clinical staff and help them to understand they had someone there to guide them through the entire process. They definitely demonstrated gratitude when they could see the end result after two weeks of being live with the software. The practices needed to make sure they scheduled their patients at a 50-percent reduction rate to accommodate the change in software for the first two weeks.

The practices gradually implemented the EHR software of Epic, which resulted in maintaining positive patient-physician relationships and fostering the sharing of medical information. After demonstrating proficiencies, the physicians and other clinical staff were comfortable with the new EHR systems and even say they could then see the potential benefits of the new changes.

Here’s an EMR adoption study which interested me largely because it runs counter to what I would have predicted.  The study, which surveyed physicians pre- and post- EMR implementation, found that doctors who owned a stake in their practice found their rollout to be tougher than physicians who didn’t have a stake.

I don’t know about you, but I would have assumed that the folks with more control — the owners — would have found it easier than those who have to adapt to the decisions others make.  But it seems that physician-owners simply feel the pain of change more acutely.

To conduct the study, which was published last week in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association,  researchers surveyed 156 physicians working with the Massachusetts eHealth Collaborative.  The surveys included a pre-implementation questionnaire  in 2005 and a post-implementation questionnaire in 2009.

Thirty-five percent of doctors who responded reported that implementation was very difficult, 54 percent said it was somewhat difficult and 12 percent not difficult. Those numbers square pretty well with what I’ve seen elsewhere. The twist here was that 38 percent of physicians with full or partial ownership stakes in their practices voted “very difficult,” versus 27 percent of non-owners. That surprised me. After all, aren’t most of the complaints coming from doctors who try to use the new systems?

According to Marshall Fleurant, MD, one of the study’s authors, the owners “probably experienced more underlying challenges associated with EHR implementation and workflow transformation” given their broader operational responsibilities.

While this study is interesting, it’s hardly the last word. Teasing out just which factors predict how doctors will react to EMR implementation, much less what it takes to support them, is still a new science.  But it never hurts to bear in mind that physicians making critical management decisions get support, too.

Right now,  healthcare organizations have to go through some pretty tricky maneuvers to link patient data across varied systems and settings.  It’s possible to connect patient info electronically through database hacks, but more often than not, matching patients to clinical data gets done by hand.

Given the insane complexity of the existing system, would it make sense to create a national patient identification number for every U.S. patient?  The question is worth revisiting, given the immense level of error and wasted time generated by the existing system. After all, not only would putting an NPI in place make it easier to track patients within a hospital or health system, it would simplify the rollout of HIEs dramatically, wouldn’t it?

Dr. Robert Rowley of EMR vendor Practice Fusion notes that the biggest enemies of establishing a National Patient Identifier are privacy advocates who feel that an NPI would expose patients to greater risk of breaches or misuse of data.

But is that a realistic concern? Probably not. I agree with Dr. Rowley, who asserts that it’s hard to imagine that PHI would be at greater risk simply because of how it’s indexed.  As he notes, PHI breaches are nearly always often haphazard affairs in which a laptop is stolen than Big Government or corporate conspiracies. (If you’re afraid the government is covertly siphoning your health data off to study it, not having an NPI won’t protect you, anyway.)

No, the real barrier to this kind of administrative simplification measure is time, money and resources, the same barriers that hold back any other proposed HIT project.  It’s hard to imagine the resources that would be involved in instituting such a system — the idea makes my head hurt — and I have to assume it’d be several years before it was anything like mature.

Still, it’s good to bear in mind that at least some members of the public are afraid that creating an NPI would compromise their privacy. If the only barrier to improving patient matching in our EMRs is technical, that’s one thing — but if it’s patient fears, that’s another thing entirely. Sometimes, it’s good to remember that most of the world doesn’t think like a health IT exec.

For quite some time now, I’ve nursed my own doubts about:
- how effective EMRs are (disastrous in the short term, long term they’re supposed to make life easier, but we haven’t seen any evidence of that yet)
- why physicians are being paid to implement something that makes logical sense (you need something to nudge people out of status quo. And probably in the government’s thinking, what better use for taxpayer dollars, right?)

I came upon this blogpost, provocatively titled Why EMR is a four-letter word to most physicians. Adam Sharp, Par8o (“pareto”, not “par 80″) founder references this post from the Healthcare Blog. The discrepancy in the rates between adoption of any EMR is mind-boggling. It was projected to be close to 56.9% in 2010, vs. adoption of a fully functional EMR (projected to be close to 10.1% in 2010). (I’m not using the 2011 rates because the rates for fully functional EMR adoption in 2011 are not listed).

A reason Sharp gives for incentives and threats of decreased payment are “the industry and physicians have known for years that EMRs do not improve productivity and that it is highly questionable that EMRs lead to better patient outcomes”. While I would agree that in the short term, there is decreased productivity, I’m not so sure you can dismiss there is no productivity increase over the long term. This report about a UC Davis study for example, shows that the loss of productivity was just one month for internal medicine, and that productivity increased to pre-EMR implementation levels in the next six months. The not-so-good news is that productivity levels declined for pediatricians and family practices.

I interpret these findings like this: for specialties where there is loss of productivity, sure, the whole exercise needs a rethink. But in cases where your productivity is at par with your pre-EHR levels, I think there is a hidden benefit that detractors are more than willing to gloss over – the availability of patient data. Data is the holy grail – it’s up to us to figure out whether and how we use it.

Sharp also imagines some doomsday scenarios – of EMR vendors with uncanny abilities to do as they please.

“The goal of EMRs is to wrestle control of healthcare away from the doctor-patient relationship into the hands of third parties who can then implement their policies….by simply removing a button or an option in the EMR.”

Maybe I’m turning turncoat here and letting you guys in on the best kept secret of the IT industry, but every vendor I’ve worked for, past and present, figuratively quakes in his IT boots when it comes to contract renewal. Even for COTS products, vendors actually customize things here and there for customers, till you have 25 versions of the same code, all just to keep their customers happy and paying. While I’m pretty sure there are rogue vendors who can give you the best EMR nightmares money can buy, I also do think customers can, and do, help rein in errant ideas. In other words, vendors can’t simply remove buttons and options or randomly start charging you for stuff, not unless you let it happen. And you, the customer, hold the purse strings, ergo YOU, not the vendor, call the shots.

I don’t quite find myself agreeing with the cynical conclusion of the post which is that the point of EMRs is to wrest control away from doctors and patients into the hands of third parties who wish to regulate choice and eligibility. But there’s plenty there that’s food for thought. Go check it out.

You’ve no doubt heard it. The healthcare industry has the dubious distinction of having had the three of the top six IT related security breaches this year. This article in the Healthcare Finance News quotes figures published by the Ponemon Institute, a research organization. According to the article, there’s been a 32 percent increase in frequency of data breaches, in other words, the frequency has increased by almost a third.And it has cost the industry $6.5 billion.

But a similar story in the NY Times shows us how woefully inadequate our existing data protection laws are (This story also quotes the numbers from the same Ponemon Institute study). An employee from a Massachussetts eHealth Collaborative lost a laptop containing 13,687 records. Each of those records contained some combination of a patient’s name, SSN, birthdate and other identifying information. Now, by law, healthcare organizations are required to report breaches involving 500 or more patients and the Department of Health and Human Services.

However, says NYT, Micky Tripathi, the non-profit’s president and CEO, soon figured out “just how many ways there were to count to 500. The law requires disclosure only in cases that “pose a significant risk of financial, reputational or other harm to the individual affected. His team spent hours poring over a backup of the stolen laptop files. Of the nearly 14,000 patient records on the stolen laptop, most records did not warrant disclosure. In 2,777 cases, for instance, a record listed only a patient’s name.”

The NYT story also points out another strange loophole that came to the aid of the non-profit – the entities responsible for protecting patient health are the providers, not contractors such as Mass. eHealth.

“In the eyes of the law, Mr. Tripathi’s nonprofit is a contractor that acts on behalf of health providers. The legal burden of protecting patient data actually falls on his clients: the physicians and hospitals who entrusted his nonprofit with their files.”The laws create a perverse outcome,” he says. “It was our fault, but from a federal perspective, it wasn’t our breach.”"

So of the 14,000 or so patients affected, Micky Tripathi’s non-profit only needed to notify 998 people. Of these, only one organization had patients more than 500 in number, requiring a mugshot report on the HHS wall of shame, and an offer of free credit monitoring from Mass eHealth.

In the end, the cost of credit monitoring services to Mass eHealth was a mere $6000 though the article says the non-profit ended up spending close to $300,000 in the aftermath. I wonder if this includes the cost of the necessary sleuthing involved and so on. If this is the case, the numbers are incidental expenses; the money spent directly on the breach itself was a fraction of that.

Compare this to the $1 million fine incurred by Mass. General Hospital for the loss of 192 patient records left by a negligent employee on a subway train.

With these numbers in mind, here are my takeaways from these stories:
- Who is responsible for what breach is not clear enough. I had to re-read the definition for covered entities to make sure that Mass eHealth doesn’t fall under it. If the law takes such a lax attitude to IT contractors – who BTW provide the bulk of the IT infrastructure at many hospitals – where’s the incentive for anyone to do things differently?
- There’s a crazy penalty structure in place. A hospital losing 192 records resulted in a million dollar fine. A non-profit losing 998 records incurred $6000 in expenses. So if you’re a hospital, you’re better off with contractor negligence than your employees/equipment being the responsible party.
- Rules can be creatively interpreted.
- There’s not enough negative fallout for data breaches for healthcare/HIT organizations to do things differently. Say, if in addition to the notice on the HHS wall of shame and fines, there were other repercussions like, I don’t know, a digital time-out of sorts for both contractors and healthcare organizations, maybe healthcare and IT would begin to care more.

John’s Comment: This is definitely an interesting case. With the new HITECH laws I can’t imagine how this doesn’t fall under the Business Associate agreement which would require that they follow the HIPAA laws just like any provider. The article does say that contractors aren’t responsible, but that seems like bad legal advice given by the contractor’s lawyer. I’m not a lawyer, but I’ll have to email a healthcare lawyer friend of mine to have him comment on this case as well.

It’s also worth noting that all of the breaches mentioned above have been through laptops or other devices left behind. None of the major breaches have been a hacker getting into an EMR or EHR system. Everyone likes to blame the EHR software for privacy issues, but so far they haven’t happened. They will one day, but the bigger privacy issue is still unsecured devices and human breaches (ie. staff looking at inappropriate records).

I’ve blogged before about the importance of decreasing the digital divide in this country in order to truly move healthcare interoperability forward. As I mentioned last month, “Only those patients who have access to these digital healthcare technologies will begin to clamor for them at their next doctors’ visits. Only patients’ whose doctors in turn have reached out to them via email, text or social media regarding the switch to electronic medical records, development of health information exchange and the benefits to care these will hopefully bring will be ready and willing to go with the digital flow.”

When news came across my somewhat cluttered desk of Emdeon’s initiative to provide electronic health record (EHR) technology to physicians in New Jersey’s underserved communities, I first thought, “Yes! That’s what I’m talkin’ about!” Then I put on my journalist/blogger hat and thought, “Will this truly change anything in these particular communities, or is this just good PR?”

A quick bit of background: Emdeon is partnering with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office of Minority Health, New Jersey Health Information Technology Extension Center (NJ-HITEC), the state’s REC, and the HIMSS Latino Community. Through the initiative, Emdeon will donate Emdeon Clinician licenses to 100 healthcare providers who practice within medically underserved areas and/or healthcare provider shortage areas, as designated by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), according to a recent Emdeon press release. The company will waive the license fee for these physicians for one year.

The same press release also mentions “EHR adoption is lower among providers serving Hispanic patients who are uninsured or rely on Medicaid, and is lower among providers serving uninsured, non-Hispanic black patients than among providers serving privately insured, non-Hispanic white patients.”

The initiative sounds like a great idea, but the one-year stipulation got me thinking (a bad habit, I know). What will these physicians, who presumably can’t really afford this technology now, do after their year is up? I reached out to Miriam Paramore, Senior Vice President – clinical and government services at Emdeon, to learn more about the ins and outs of the program.

How did the initiative come about?
Miriam Paramore: During the fall of 2010, leaders from the Office of Minority Health (OMH) and Health Information Technology issued a public, written request to health IT vendors, asking them to pay special attention to healthcare providers within underserved communities. This initiative is known as The Alliance to Reduce Health IT Disparities. Emdeon is serving as a private partner with the OMH to offer access to health IT products and services to providers within undeserved communities in New Jersey. We were thrilled to volunteer and to work within these communities.

Has Emdeon ever done anything like this before?
We’re happy to do part of this effort with HHS and it is the first time we’ve partnered with them.  We have great empathy for the challenges of the physicians in underserved communities and we want to help.

What sort of challenges do small physician practices in underserved communities typically encounter?
In addition to challenges like poverty and health disparities amongst their patient population, providers in underserved communities and smaller practice offices face expensive costs associated with on-boarding EHRs. Emdeon created the Emdeon Clinician solution as an affordable EHR “lite” solution for these small practice physicians or those working in underserved communities. They now have an affordable, easy-to-use solution that will help them to qualify for federal HITECH stimulus dollars without unnecessary disruption and expense of a full-blown EHR system.

How will you work with these 100 physician practices to ensure they are able to continue using the donated EHR after the year-long license expires?
Once the 12-month period expires, providers will be able to continue using Emdeon Clinician for only $99 per provider, per month. Emdeon usually has a $500 implementation and training fee [that, for this program,] has been discounted to a one-time fee of $200 for the providers participating in this project. This is a considerable discount and the fee would only have to be paid once. We will begin outreach to these providers in advance of the expiration date so they are aware of the opportunity to remain with Emdeon Clinician for the low fee following the initial 12-month period.

How will Emdeon work with NJ-HITEC and the HIMSS Latino Community throughout this year to ensure that these practices receive continued training and support?
Emdeon has taken the lead with managing this initiative between all partners with monthly meetings to monitor progress. We have a dedicated project manager, who has mapped a process with the internal team to assist with implementing these physicians as soon as possible. Our custom phone number (1-855-840-7120) connects interested providers directly with a dedicated clinical sales executive who can assist them throughout the enrollment process.

The NJ-HITEC and HIMSS Latino partners are assisting in the recruitment of providers who practice within medically underserved areas for this program from their vast networks across New Jersey communities. These partners are working cooperatively with Emdeon to create a strategy that focuses upon identifying and recruiting providers within underserved communities who are willing to adopt EHRs, especially those interested in qualifying for federal incentive dollars.

How many practices do you anticipate being eligible, and how many do you expect will apply?
While we aren’t sure how many will apply, the HHS OMH recognized that the counties of Camden, Essex and Passaic have the largest percentage of underserved communities. Through our collaborative efforts with the OMH, HIMSS Latino and NJ HITEC, we hope to reach many of those physicians within those counties to take advantage of the 12-month program.

How will Emdeon and its partners determine if this program is a success?
Together with our partners, we believe success will be donating all 100 licenses to providers in underserved communities. The reporting element of this project will help OMH understand the progress of EHR adoption in the context of how long implementation takes in its entirety.

So it seems that Emdeon and its partners certainly have their ducks in a row when it comes to aiding and abetting these physicians before, during and even after the program is technically over. I’ll be interested to see if this model will, in fact, be successful, and if it can be supported in other underserved areas across the nation.

For more information on participating in the program, check out: http://www.emdeon.com/newjersey/

I got suckered into article-hopping on TechCrunch reading Dave Chase’s opinion piece on Microsoft’s recent joint venture with GE Healthcare, only Chase’s headline reads “Microsoft Ends Another Vertical Market Dalliance—This Time In Healthcare”. Two hours later, here I am with the post I should have written right away.

Regarding the joint venture, here’s what the Microsoft spin machine put out, and here’s the original New York Times blogpost that first broke the news.

To summarize: Microsoft and GE will be joining forces in a healthcare joint venture, if and when the deal gets regulatory approval. Some of Microsoft’s healthcare projects like Amalga, Vergence, and expreSSO will now form part of the joint venture. The new company has not been named, but there are plans to hire 750 people, sourced from Microsoft, GE and elsewhere.

- HealthVault still remains with Microsoft.

I’m not a Microsoft fan by any standards but I’m not so sure it’s a bad idea for Microsoft to want to join forces with GE, and keep HealthVault inhouse. And I’m also not sure I’d term the process an end to Microsoft’s healthcare plans. It seems more of a shift in gears. However, Chase, who worked with Microsoft for 12 years, believes it is a sign of an exit given Microsoft’s old exit patterns. (Chase’s list of all the verticals Microsoft has exited from makes for interesting reading. Did you know Expedia used to be a Microsoft company? Me neither.) Posting in the discussion following the Tech Crunch article, Chase also insinuates that there have been layoffs among Amalga employees, though he doesn’t give any numbers.

The NYT post states that the aim for the new company is to provide a Windows like platform which developers can then use to create healthcare related apps and services on. It also rightly points out that EMR vendors like Epic and Cerner are not going to be falling head over heels building products for the new platform.

One of the most trenchant comments (to me at least) on the NYT post comes from a commenter called Manuel Albarracin:

“Also, beyond Epic or Cerner, there will be others who will resist change along these lines, for this resistance comes not only from (legitimately) wanting to protect market positions and commercial interests; it also comes from a subtle but entrenched (and not so legitimate) mentality to reinvent the wheel at every healthcare organization, to ‘control things our way’, thus creating ‘walled-gardens’ in each of them.”

Which is probably what Microsoft has in mind – to provide the framework that the apps are built on. If the Windows experience is anything to go by, we should be in for an interesting ride.

I’ve had the good fortune in the past year or two to watch one of my daughters’ favorite babysitters blossom into a full-time nursing student at the University of West Georgia. Not only do my girls benefit from her great bedside manner, including an infinite amount of patience, but I get an occasional inside glimpse into the world of digital medical record keeping in the greater Atlanta area.

Her training at West Georgia has taken her to Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta – Egleston, Wellstar Cobb and Austell, Fayette Piedmont, Tanner Medical Center and Gentiva Healthfield Hospice. She graciously offered to share her rookie’s perspective on the electronic medical records – including SCM/Quest (Allscripts Sunrise Clinical EHR system) and Meditech – she has used at several of the facilities she has trained in.

How long have your healthcare training facilities had EMRs in place?
All except Gentiva Healthfield Hospice – in-home hospice care, for the most part, sticks with paper charting. If they were to make the switch to an EMR, they would have to have access to a central database from their personal computers/iPads/Blackberries, etc. All others have had some sort of electronic database for at least five years.

How intuitive did you find them to be in your first training sessions/rounds?
Once I had been trained in the first system I encountered, the rest seemed very user-friendly. They have been in use long enough now that they are efficient and fairly self-explanatory.

They all allow an employee to cluster patient care and spend enough time with the patient because the time stamp on documentation can be changed to the time that the intervention was completed. For example, I could complete a full assessment on a patient, bathe them and administer their medications without having to document in the computer every few minutes. I could just open their EMR after completing their care and add the correct time stamp on my documentation.

What were the easiest to use, and what were the most difficult?
Meditech was the most difficult to use, perhaps because I had limited access as a student. It was difficult to find complete admission notes and patient histories.

Speaking from a “rookie’s” perspective, what would you tell vendors of these systems to better their products?
Add a patient verification requirement before each documentation session, i.e. each set of vital signs, medications given, etc. (Something simple, like a box with the patient’s name and DOB and an “Ok” button)

Did your supervisors express any enthusiasm or dissatisfaction with any particular systems?
All expressed enthusiasm, but they also were concerned any time a system was to be updated with even minor changes. Fayette Piedmont uses one EMR system for Labor and Delivery, and a completely different system for the rest of the hospital. This means, for the staff, that a new baby’s records have to be re-entered into a new system once they are discharged from labor and delivery and admitted to the NICU or postpartum unit. It also means the pharmacy has difficulty accessing vital information when, for instance, they need to know a baby’s weight to send the appropriate dose of medication to the NICU.

How aware are you of post-implementation training that goes on with EMRs, based on the facilities you’ve trained at? Do your supervisors ever mention it?
Once an employee is hired, they usually must display proficiency with the charting system within a specified training period. When Fayette Piedmont updated SCM/Quest, they did not retrain each employee, but they did send out a packet with a detailed description of the changes. From what I have seen, the older nurses who may have preferred paper charting at one point do not seem to have any problems with the electronic charting.

Have you been made aware of any increase/decrease in positive clinical outcomes as a result of physicians/nurses using these systems? Any examples you feel comfortable sharing?
The major changes to these systems each time they are updated usually involve the addition of safeguards. For example, the newest version of SCM/Quest has the patient’s name, weight, room number and allergies on every page of the charting system, and in multiple locations on the page.

For the employees who pay attention, this has reduced many documentation errors. There is also an embedded link to drug guides in every electronic medication order with explicit instructions and safe dose ranges. For the employee who knows these features are there, they are a tremendous help, and they do serve to protect the patient. It is still possible to document in the wrong patient’s chart, without realizing it, in any system.

Needless to say, it will be interesting to see how her experience with EMRs changes as she continues her studies and then moves into the professional world of nursing, which will likely coincide with healthcare facilities continuing to move through the various stages of Meaningful Use.

Stay tuned for next week’s post, in which I’ll profile an EMR educator, and find out what other students are facing when it comes to EMR training. In the meantime, what sort of healthcare IT-related challenges will our new workforce face in the coming year? Please share your thoughts in the comments below.